Girls in... threads but a no swearing plicy, makes no sense.

msmancunia

@ Supersonic

I don't go in Cakestop because of the Girls in... threads - I do find them creepy and letchy and a bit gross. If something is offensive to me in here, I will report it in the future.

But have the moderators stopped to think about things that are NSFW (or children, for that matter). Adult sites have warnings to under 18 year olds - I have no idea if this is a legal requirement or not, but for the purposes of argument I'm presuming it is. I know that kids can go on sites and just say that they are 18 and browse away.
I don't have kids yet, but if I was the parent of a 12, 13 year old child, I'd have set my home PC up to ensure that porn was blocked. I wouldn't even think of blocking a cycling site as I'd presume it was safe. I know teenagers have posted on here before - innocuous posts about what bike, etc etc, because I've seen them.
What I am certain of, is that if I was the parent of a 12,13 year old, I would not want them to 1) see photos of a girl sat on the loo with her knickers round her ankles, or of a woman being done from behind, or 2) the letchy, pervy comments that inevitably follow these posts.

If it is a legal requirement to have warnings before viewing internet porn (which the picture of the girl on her knees definitely is) then BR needs to get its house in order.

jonny_trousers

supersonic wrote:

I went and had a look in Cakestop (purely as part of my job): 320 pages! More than I thought!

I did too, for interest's sake only, of course. I was grateful I'd changed out of my lycra before I did! :shock:

I guess that "Women doing ordinary things" - or whatever the hell it's called - thread is in pretty poor taste if BR is keen not to have the 'lads' mag' types have the run of the place, but I still find it hard to be offended by the other stuff - actually I still just find it hard.

Over the years I've discovered that if there's something about the tone of a web forum I don't like then it's easier just to move on.

supersonic

When the forums merged there was quite a bit of fuss about having 'sandbox' areas for more risque topics (to be carried over from old forums). To start with, they were simply off topic areas. In the MTB section we have two distinct areas of Off Topic, one with a disclaimer to Parental Guidance, another that covers more serious topics. It does seem a large portion of the site users do want a more adult area. This of course does raise concerns if children do wander in, and certainly does not mean these areas have no rules. Pornography is prohibited ie explicit sexual material. But again, maybe we run into arguments about what constitutes explicit, and then back to what remedies there are.

It would be easy to say "don't visit that forum/thread then", but of course this does not address complaints of women being viewed in a certain light (nor the one of children).

rjsterry

supersonic wrote:

When the forums merged there was quite a bit of fuss about having 'sandbox' areas for more risque topics (to be carried over from old forums). To start with, they were simply off topic areas. In the MTB section we have two distinct areas of Off Topic, one with a disclaimer to Parental Guidance, another that covers more serious topics. It does seem a large portion of the site users do want a more adult area. This of course does raise concerns if children do wander in, and certainly does not mean these areas have no rules. Pornography is prohibited ie explicit sexual material. But again, maybe we run into arguments about what constitutes explicit, and then back to what remedies there are.

It would be easy to say "don't visit that forum/thread then", but of course this does not address complaints of women being viewed in a certain light (nor the one of children).

Could you make some areas for logged in users only? Starts to make it seem even more like some sort of 'Private Shop' though.

supersonic

I think in can be done: but as you say, has connotations!

I think whatever happens, there will be complaints - I can hear now the calls of over zealous mods spoiling a bit of fun! (and people WILL say this!). But for now, let's stick with the reporting, and keep this subject open for more discussion.

velocestrapture

supersonic wrote:

When the forums merged there was quite a bit of fuss about having 'sandbox' areas for more risque topics (to be carried over from old forums). To start with, they were simply off topic areas. In the MTB section we have two distinct areas of Off Topic, one with a disclaimer to Parental Guidance, another that covers more serious topics. It does seem a large portion of the site users do want a more adult area. This of course does raise concerns if children do wander in, and certainly does not mean these areas have no rules. Pornography is prohibited ie explicit sexual material. But again, maybe we run into arguments about what constitutes explicit, and then back to what remedies there are.

It would be easy to say "don't visit that forum/thread then", but of course this does not address complaints of women being viewed in a certain light (nor the one of children).

I don't think it is that hard a question, really. The mods do have to make a decision as to whether they want to run a board that is attractive to anyone who cycles, or whether they want to run a niche board for male cyclists who also want to post adult content.

If the aim of the board is the former, then the question is, 'does this image/post present the woman/man subject as an object to be lusted over/ ridiculed?'.

Alternatively, you can run the 'blush test' - if you had to stand before a mixed gendered room full of strangers whom you knew nothing about, and justify your decision to allow the post to stand, would you feel awkward or embarrassed in doing so?

SteppenHerring

velocestrapture wrote:

Alternatively, you can run the 'blush test' - if you had to stand before a mixed gendered room full of strangers whom you knew nothing about, and justify your decision to allow the post to stand, would you feel awkward or embarrassed in doing so?

That sounds reasonable.

But it is the text which is possibly worse. I am the parent of a 12 year old. I wouldn't want him reading Loaded magazine or Nuts magazine or Zoo magazine - not because of the images. Yes the images are a bit tacky, but it's the words that are probably more disturbing (as far as I remember - haven't looked at one for a while).

I would let it stand, but rename "Cake Stop" to "Teenage boys who've never had a conversation with a woman".

EKE_38BPM

lost_in_thought wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

@EKE --

NB: I haven't read all the posts very thoroughly, forgive me if this has been discussed but I haven't noticed it.

I think it's great that you find 'athletic women' attractive, but the pictures you've posted are demeaning in my book. They ignore the women's sporting prowess and achievements, and turn them into a pair of boobs or a nice a*se. Both seem like accidental exposures, which a photographer catering to lecherous men has deliberately taken. That has a 'hiding in the bushes' (peeping tom) feel to it, which is creepy.

I doubt if the two pics I posted were taken by a bloke in a bush. More likely a professional photographer at the side of the track or at the sidelines respectively and (s)he probably had a press pass.

Not what I'm saying. For clarity, bold text, and it certainly seems like whoever took those photos knew they were catering to the pervy crowd, not the interested in sports crowd.

Just like in this pic, I suppose.

Is that picture caterering to the pervy crowd or is it just a still image caught during two team mates celebrating (like the other one was). People with dirty minds can see sexual images anywhere. Didn't the Victorians even cover the legs of tables as they were so provocative? Never mind eating bananas with a knife and fork.

lost_in_thought wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Maybe female athletes should dress like Fatima Sulaiman Dahman has to to prevent the powers that be in Yemen stoning her to death?

Where'd you get that from in my post? Is VP dressed in a burkini?

I guess I was putting words into your mouth/taking your argument to illogical conclusions.

lost_in_thought wrote:

The rest is all good, though!

Cheers LiT. I'm just a guy who doesn't mind seeing pictures of athletic ladies doing athletics.

lost_in_thought

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Is that picture caterering to the pervy crowd or is it just a still image caught during two team mates celebrating (like the other one was). People with dirty minds can see sexual images anywhere. Didn't the Victorians even cover the legs of tables as they were so provocative? Never mind eating bananas with a knife and fork.

Ah come on sailor!

That's literally nothing like the two you posted earlier. If one of their shorts were right up their bum, or the picture focused on whatever the male equivalent of boobs is, I'd agree, but nah, I don't buy it!

What IS the male equivalent body part of boobs, I wonder...

roger_merriman

lost_in_thought wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Is that picture caterering to the pervy crowd or is it just a still image caught during two team mates celebrating (like the other one was). People with dirty minds can see sexual images anywhere. Didn't the Victorians even cover the legs of tables as they were so provocative? Never mind eating bananas with a knife and fork.

Ah come on sailor!

That's literally nothing like the two you posted earlier. If one of their shorts were right up their bum, or the picture focused on whatever the male equivalent of boobs is, I'd agree, but nah, I don't buy it!

What IS the male equivalent body part of boobs, I wonder...

pecks maybe?

Do agree that some of the threads do sail a tad close to the wind.

EKE_38BPM

lost_in_thought wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Is that picture caterering to the pervy crowd or is it just a still image caught during two team mates celebrating (like the other one was). People with dirty minds can see sexual images anywhere. Didn't the Victorians even cover the legs of tables as they were so provocative? Never mind eating bananas with a knife and fork.

Ah come on sailor!

That's literally nothing like the two you posted earlier. If one of their shorts were right up their bum, or the picture focused on whatever the male equivalent of boobs is, I'd agree, but nah, I don't buy it!

lost_in_thought wrote:

What IS the male equivalent body part of boobs, I wonder...

Male equivalent of boobs, you say...

How am I doing?

jonny_trousers

lost_in_thought wrote:

What IS the male equivalent ... of boobs, I wonder...

I'm only being slightly cheeky here as there is plausible theory to suggest that women - without them necessarily being consciously conniving - are now attracted to success and wealth in a man as a potential mate in a way that not so long ago it would have come down to physical virility.

When it comes to physical attributes, however, I believe it's a downward pointing triangular torso.

I do think there is one thing some women could do with being reminded of when we talk about a straight man's attraction to pictures of semi naked women. We like boobs! We like boobs, we like bums, we like legs and we like pretty faces, we have done since we were little boys, but the vast majority of us also have a filter and we know that enjoying looking at pictures of attractive women is one thing, and treating women in the wider world with a total lack of respect is quite another. Those who do have an offensive attitude will have cultivated it for reasons way beyond the easy access to sexually enticing imagery.

The question of whether or not such imagery should be readily available on a site such as this is open to argument, but I do agree with SteppenHerring when he says it is words that have a far greater potential to cause harm.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Is that picture caterering to the pervy crowd or is it just a still image caught during two team mates celebrating (like the other one was). People with dirty minds can see sexual images anywhere. Didn't the Victorians even cover the legs of tables as they were so provocative? Never mind eating bananas with a knife and fork.

Ah come on sailor!

That's literally nothing like the two you posted earlier. If one of their shorts were right up their bum, or the picture focused on whatever the male equivalent of boobs is, I'd agree, but nah, I don't buy it!

What IS the male equivalent body part of boobs, I wonder...

May I direct your attention to the blog I found over on the Boyz in Lycra thread. Having said that, that's clearly the male form as, um, appreciated by another man. Don't know whether women would say the same thing. Msmancunia's reaction was more one of hilarity.

msmancunia

I did find it funny - I think women tend to go more for what you can't see, rather than what you can. That guy in the white made me cringe. From what I've seen of my friends, women tend to get giggly rather than pervy, when it comes to the male form. And that Spiderman pic made me cry laughing....

EKE_38BPM

msmanc wrote:

I think women tend to go more for what you can't see, rather than what you can.

As has been said earlier

msmancunia

haha. Ok - what floats my boat? He should like books, be able to change an inner tube, is taller than me (and I'm only 5ft6), and can't support Man U. Job, car, house, wallet don't really interest me - I have simple tastes.

rick_chasey

msmancunia wrote:

haha. Ok - what floats my boat? He should like books, be able to change an inner tube, is taller than me (and I'm only 5ft6), and can't support Man U. Job, car, house, wallet don't really interest me - I have simple tastes.

So you're about to sleep with a smoking hot guy you just met in a bar and you quickly throw him a wheel with a puncture tyre and tell him to fix it while you quiz him on your literary and football tastes?

No wonder I was unlucky at 6th form!

DonDaddyD

Can I just say (before a "I hate DDD" cake stop thread gets made), my intention wasn't to have the 'Girls in...' threads deleted.

Many times the more poefaced on here have come down on me for being text heavy in the detail. It irks me because while the poefaced would complain that I had written something slightly sexually related (like I proposed butt naked) there was a series of some of the most explicit threads (picturewise) I've seen on a website that isn't porn being added and contributed to daily.

Then there was the heavy filtering of cuss words like fuck, cunt, shit, bitch and smeghead (hey I can call people smeghead) and I got to thinking, is this website a haven for the poefaced sensitive or not?

When does something become regarded as "adult" The word f.u.c.k or a picture of two people f.u.c.k.i.n.g? For me the picture is more "adult" (explicit).

I showed Ms DDD THAT picture and told her the context, women in realistic situations, and she was none too impressed. It didn't endear her to cycling, lets just say. Then as this thread progressed and Velo and MsManc explained their perspective I couldn't help but finding myself agreeing with them.

And before you all start calling me a hypocrite and reminding me of the time I referred to that girl that pissed me off as a "bint". After my baby was born I went through a revelation and started thinking about sex, women, porn differently (seriously I don't watch porn anymore, that's amazing as it was a preferred genre). In fact IRL I was heard to have said:

"Pregnancy, my minds eye's perception of the vagina evolving from teenage boy fantasy to purposeful organ".

So I have grown. 8)

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

I showed Ms DDD THAT picture and told her the context, women in realistic situations, and she was none too impressed.

I hope this wasn't a surprise to you!!

msmancunia

Rick Chasey wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

haha. Ok - what floats my boat? He should like books, be able to change an inner tube, is taller than me (and I'm only 5ft6), and can't support Man U. Job, car, house, wallet don't really interest me - I have simple tastes.

So you're about to sleep with a smoking hot guy you just met in a bar and you quickly throw him a wheel with a puncture tyre and tell him to fix it while you quiz him on your literary and football tastes?

No wonder I was unlucky at 6th form!

Mr Chasey, I wouldn't sleep with a man I'd must met in a bar, no matter how hot and smoking he was. I do have morals.... :shock:

rick_chasey

msmancunia wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

haha. Ok - what floats my boat? He should like books, be able to change an inner tube, is taller than me (and I'm only 5ft6), and can't support Man U. Job, car, house, wallet don't really interest me - I have simple tastes.

So you're about to sleep with a smoking hot guy you just met in a bar and you quickly throw him a wheel with a puncture tyre and tell him to fix it while you quiz him on your literary and football tastes?

No wonder I was unlucky at 6th form!

Mr Chasey, I wouldn't sleep with a man I'd must met in a bar, no matter how hot and smoking he was. I do have morals.... :shock:

How about a guy you met fixing his puncture outside a book shop with a what's what of good literature?

DonDaddyD

Dude she doesn't do one night stands.

If she was from Liverpool or Essex I would be querying the validity of that too, I'm assuming that she's from the posh part of Manchester, Salford... Sorry, I'm not hating on you fella. But you may need to bring your A-game. Tell her that your a lefty and hate everything Tory, as she's from Ooop North you may be able to share a common hatered.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude she doesn't do one night stands.

Sorry, I'm not hating on you fella. But you may need to bring your A-game. Tell her that your a lefty and hate everything Tory, as she's from Ooop North you may be able to share a common hatered.

Woah, I'm not trying to come on here.

I have a gf who I live with, and puts up with my silver-nitrate stained face (which makes me look a bit like hitler).

What more could a man want in life?

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude she doesn't do one night stands.

Sorry, I'm not hating on you fella. But you may need to bring your A-game. Tell her that your a lefty and hate everything Tory, as she's from Ooop North you may be able to share a common hatered.

Woah, I'm not trying to come on here.

I have a gf who I live with, and puts up with my silver-nitrate stained face (which makes me look a bit like hitler).

What more could a man want in life?

A fry-up every Sunday.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude she doesn't do one night stands.

Sorry, I'm not hating on you fella. But you may need to bring your A-game. Tell her that your a lefty and hate everything Tory, as she's from Ooop North you may be able to share a common hatered.

Woah, I'm not trying to come on here.

I have a gf who I live with, and puts up with my silver-nitrate stained face (which makes me look a bit like hitler).

What more could a man want in life?

Explosion in a darkroom?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude she doesn't do one night stands.

Sorry, I'm not hating on you fella. But you may need to bring your A-game. Tell her that your a lefty and hate everything Tory, as she's from Ooop North you may be able to share a common hatered.

Woah, I'm not trying to come on here.

I have a gf who I live with, and puts up with my silver-nitrate stained face (which makes me look a bit like hitler).

What more could a man want in life?

Explosion in a darkroom?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chemical-cautery.htm

DonDaddyD

Ah nuts, I've scared her away haven't I.

Well done Rick!

msmancunia

Calm down RC - I was taking your comments purely hypothetically - no harm done

jonny_trousers

The way this thread has turned out it so deserves a facepalm. Show 'em Jean-Luc!

msmancunia

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude she doesn't do one night stands.

If she was from Liverpool or Essex I would be querying the validity of that too, I'm assuming that she's from the posh part of Manchester, Salford... Sorry, I'm not hating on you fella. But you may need to bring your A-game. Tell her that your a lefty and hate everything Tory, as she's from Ooop North you may be able to share a common hatered.

... and DDD, this is scarily accurate. I'm even typing this in Salford *looks round for spy camera*